5D III awful results

<p>Hi<br>

I,ve owned 5D11 for last 3 years and loved the results apart from the autofocus issues.<br>

So i purchased the 5DIII recently hoping to resolve the autofocus . And yes the autofocus is fantastic compared to 5DII , such a massive improvement. However <strong>so disappointed </strong>with everything else. Whats happened?<br>

<strong>Color balance</strong> is awful, really cold and unappealing. I shoot in Raw and process ACR and have tried all kinds of fiddling around with it, in WB adjustments & adjustments, camera callibration picture styles etc ..general blue hue to shadows, if low key, looks very depressing. And on cloudy days, tried Shade, cloudy , daylight etc but then can go too yellow. Lost the natural warmth and quality of 5DII images.<br>

<strong>Highlights:</strong> if strong backlight, or block colors behind subject weird 3D effects, as if model subject has been cut-out. Edges strange . I have no sharpening applied and or ALO or HP, so can;t figure weird cheap process effect out?<br>

<strong>Contrast:</strong> seems to have a harshness , over processed finish to it, especially in strong sunlight or contrasty light?<br>

<strong>Skintones; </strong>black & asian skins look terrible ,very orange & unnatural ( again tried all different settings with color)<br>

..is anyone else experiencing similar issues. ?</p>

 

<p>No, no one else is getting "awful results"; quite the contrary. Either send the camera in for repair or stick with the 5DII.</p>

<p>Mark. This is her first post here. Your one-liner which essentially blew off her concerns was not a nice welcome. I don't know the answer, Louise to your problem as I do not own a 5DIII but I certainly hope you wait around for a few more thoughtful replies to your question. What software are you using? Photoshop, Lightroom maybe. Normally my raw images are a bit dull but usable. Have you tried DPP for comparison in processing? I will leave to someone who has the 5D III to help but welcome to photonet. </p>

<p>Well, Dick, I do own a 5DIII. And I've seen tens of thousands of images made with this camera as well as those made with a 5DII. I can assure the OP that I have heard of no one else having an issue with color balance, highlights, contrast or skin tones with this camera body as compared to the 5DII. If your experience is otherwise, I'm all ears.</p>

Maybe you should try restoring factory settings just to see if the problem persists.

When I was testing the 5D Mark III for a review in a professional photographer oriented magazine I did not see the

problems you are seeing. I also appreciate you adding information about how you are processing your .cr2 files. That

eliminates many of the "photo style" setting concerns.

 

If you can shoot identical frames with the 5D mark II and mark III under identical conditions and post the results it could

be helpful, if you could shoot with another 5D mark III that might help determine if your individual camera has a problem,

and if you can share your ACR settings that might help as well.

 

Also which version of ACR are you using?

<p>Louise, I've been shooting with a 5D Mark III for several months and have had none of the problems you described. I shoot in RAW and process in Lightroom 4, but doubt the different post processing software you're using is the problem.</p>

<p>Since you're shooting in RAW, have you gone through the camera's menus and shut off noise reduction, which I seem to recall was on as the default setting? A pro photographer recommended that to get the best RAW files I go through the menus and switch off anything that would have the camera making an adjustment to the file, that any adjustments should be made in post processing. Before I ever used the camera, I went through the manual setting by setting and switched off everything that would have resulted in the camera adjusting the RAW file.</p>

<p>Here is a link to the "Conclusions" page of an extensive and overall very positive review of the 5D III at dpreview.com. But listed under Cons are several comments about shortcomings resulting from the camera's default settings:</p>

<ul>

<li>Destructive noise reduction results in mushy JPEGs, even at base ISO</li>

<li>Visible sharpening artifacts at default settings</li>

<li>Heavy-handed noise reduction leads to lack of low-contrast detail at higher ISOs</li>

</ul>

<p>http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii/29</p>

<p>The problems you're describing seem worse than what the camera's default settings could cause, but it might be worth a try before you send the camera to Canon for evaluation.</p>

I've had a 5DM1, 5DM2, and now a 5DM3. I have not seen any of the issues you describe. Make sure the WB settings

on the camera are correct first

 

You can verify the WB issue by shooting a photo of a neutral gray card, do this on bright sun, away from buildings.

Shoot raw, bring it into lightroom and use the lightroom WB tool to validate. If its off, then send it in for service.

 

 

gray card examples

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=Neutral+gray+card

<p>This is an obvious troll post. </p>

<p>Louise, I've been shooting with a 5D Mark III for several months and have had none of the problems you described. I shoot in RAW and process in Lightroom 4, but doubt the different post processing software you're using is the problem.</p>

<p>Since you're shooting in RAW, have you gone through the camera's menus and shut off noise reduction, which I seem to recall was on as the default setting? A pro photographer recommended that to get the best RAW files I go through the menus and switch off anything that would have the camera making an adjustment to the file, that any adjustments should be made in post processing. Before I ever used the camera, I went through the manual setting by setting and switched off everything that would have resulted in the camera adjusting the RAW file.</p>

<p>Here is a link to the "Conclusions" page of an extensive and overall very positive review of the 5D III at dpreview.com. But listed under Cons are several comments about shortcomings resulting from the camera's default settings:</p>

<ul>

<li>Destructive noise reduction results in mushy JPEGs, even at base ISO</li>

<li>Visible sharpening artifacts at default settings</li>

<li>Heavy-handed noise reduction leads to lack of low-contrast detail at higher ISOs</li>

</ul>

<p>http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii/29</p>

<p>The problems you're describing seem worse than what the camera's default settings could cause, but it might be worth a try before you send the camera to Canon for evaluation.</p>

<p>It sounds as if you have a filter somewhere in the light path. There probably is supposed to be an infra-red filter in front of the sensor. Could a wrong part have gotten installed at the factory? I assume you don't have any filters on the lens you are using, but it wouldn't hurt to check. </p>

<p>The sensor itself has the red and green and blue pixels in a well-defined pattern. If the factory got an experimental sensor with a different pattern, the colors would be wrong. I admit that seems pretty unlikely.</p>

<p>Louise, all of your bolded concerns could be adressed by your Raw process. I too recently moved camera and although I loved how my last camera made jpegs, I didn't like how the new camera did. The answer is to take control of the process, that is, let the new amazing camera gather the RAW data and process the jpeg to taste. There is nothing inherently wrong with your camera, but getting used to a new camera is a process. Look at your conversion process, not the camera.</p>

<p>Mark I do not doubt your expertise. What I doubted was the civility of your post to a newcomer. I clearly stated that I did not know the 5D III. Some friendly help from those who have the camera has followed. So let's you and I be friends and maybe the OP can find something in the subsequent posts that will help her. </p>

I also wonder: Could Louise be having problems with her computer's display settings?

<p>Maybe it is a lemon. Or you might have to go through the settings and calibrate it a little bit. I know my canon 60D didn't just start shooting amazing photographs right out of the box. I had to work with it and get it setup so it shoots the way I want it too. Or maybe it is just a lemon and needs to be returned or sent to service at Canon in NJ. I have another question for you? <br>

Where did you buy it at? From who?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I also wonder: Could Louise be having problems with her computer's display settings?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Quite possible, but if she doesn't come back and participate in her own thread, we can only guess.</p>

<p>My guess: She's shooting in a JPG mode and has her picture settings adjusted differently from those of her previous camera. Changing the settings should magically make the 5DIII a brilliant camera.</p>

<p>In addition to the above (with the exception of a couple of offensive contributions) he also tried converting the Canon raw files to tifs using the Canon software and then opening these in LR4. He said they were nicer and more natural.<br>

Maybe ACR has not got it right with the 5D3 raw files.</p>

Francisco, more likely she likes the look of the preview she sees on the back of the camera. That is based on the picture

styles she has the camera set up for. Canon's DPP software assumes those are how you want the .cr2 to be processed.

For purely legal reasons Adobe disregards those. Outside of white balance and exposure metadata Adobe software for

legal reasons Adobe's raw processing software (Adobe Camera Raw) itnores the contents of that proprietary metadata.

<p>I'm sorry that the 5D Mark III isn't living up to your expectations, Louise. I'm curious - how are you setting your white balance? Have you tried an Expodisc or a good gray card? That might take care of some of the issues that you mentioned.</p>

<p>I'm getting excellent results with my 5D Mark III. I love the skin and hair tones that this camera captures. The autofocus is the finest by far of any camera that I have ever used. I always adjust contrast and white balance in post processing, so color and contrast are non-issues for me as long as I expose my images properly.</p>

<p>I would do two things having re-read all the posts above. I would reset and restore all factory default settings. Then go from there. I would use the Canon software to convert and do some simple post processing. No radical sharpening or white balance changes. This is what Canon will do if you send it to them. They are not going to try it with ACR or LR.<br>

With that baseline then see how the Canon software jpegs look. Set auto white balance, auto ISO etc. If your jpegs still look crappy then there is a problem with the camera. You paid, what, $3000 for this camera. It should not be this hard. For that money you deserve better default results. Canon does not assume that every buyer will be an expert, thats why the default settings should at least look ok.</p>

<p>But truly, these things happen. After a Nikon D300, D700, D3 in Nikon land, The best results I ever got out of the box were from my $300 Leica D-Lux 4. Sometimes money doesn't buy you everything. The other thing to do is get on the Canon user groups and have a look at the recommended settings others use. Someone will have them in a file format you can upload to the camera. When I first went digital with a D300, the Nikonians settings files got me close to what I liked without using any 3rd party software. It must be the same for Canon. It is also acknowledged widely that the default settings for the 5D2 produced the nicest jepgs across the board, so Canon would not have fluffed it for the 5D3. </p>

<p>I wonder whether the OP has looked at these images on more than one computer? Perhaps their monitor is not well calibrated.</p>

<p>Post a sample image</p>

<p>If Louise had good results on her existing monitor setup with 5D2 and her 5D3 looks poor it can't be the monitor. So she really needs to have her 5D3 tested. There should not be any noticeable difference in colour between the 2 cameras if they are set up the same. </p>

<p>It's always a good idea to begin with a properly calibrated monitor, as an uncalibrated monitor can give unpredictable results. We have no idea what the OP is looking for and what "look" she prefers. We have no idea whether the two cameras are set up similarly. No sample photos, either. The best we can offer is general advice. Hence, my general advice is to use the camera's default settings, manage white balance properly, calibrate the monitor, and review the images in DPP.</p>

<p>Louise,</p>

<p>let's seen some examples <em>with full Exif</em>, please.</p>